Comments on: Jury acquits Jose Luis Nazario http://politics.moonagewebdream.com/2008/08/29/jury-acquits-jose-luis-nazario/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=jury-acquits-jose-luis-nazario Think Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:45:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Moon http://politics.moonagewebdream.com/2008/08/29/jury-acquits-jose-luis-nazario/comment-page-1/#comment-25547 Moon Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:21:51 +0000 http://politics.moonagewebdream.com/?p=1798#comment-25547 OK, help me with this. You're saying a federal attorney made a federal criminal complaint in a civilian court for crimes committed by a person in the military committed in another country during an armed conflict? OK, so given that, I guess he couldn't sue the state of California. But, how much do you wanna bet the US Attorney in Kentucky would never have pursued it? I may not be a defense lawyer, but I know a few "US" Attorneys. They, like any other lawyer in this country, determine their priorities and pursue cases of their choice. And, I do know this for a proven fact in the real world, a lot of them have political agendas, goals, and ambitions as well. So, to throw the baby out with the water simply because I mentioned the wrong court is horribly misleading. Simply because I mentioned the wrong court does not mean this is not a California issue. Are we to assume that of all the military that have been in combat since 2002, representing every state in the nation, only one person fell into the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act? Or, are we to assume US Attorneys in most other states don't feel compelled politically to attack our soldiers once they've made it home safely? OK, help me with this. You’re saying a federal attorney made a federal criminal complaint in a civilian court for crimes committed by a person in the military committed in another country during an armed conflict?

OK, so given that, I guess he couldn’t sue the state of California. But, how much do you wanna bet the US Attorney in Kentucky would never have pursued it?

I may not be a defense lawyer, but I know a few “US” Attorneys. They, like any other lawyer in this country, determine their priorities and pursue cases of their choice. And, I do know this for a proven fact in the real world, a lot of them have political agendas, goals, and ambitions as well. So, to throw the baby out with the water simply because I mentioned the wrong court is horribly misleading. Simply because I mentioned the wrong court does not mean this is not a California issue. Are we to assume that of all the military that have been in combat since 2002, representing every state in the nation, only one person fell into the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act? Or, are we to assume US Attorneys in most other states don’t feel compelled politically to attack our soldiers once they’ve made it home safely?

]]> By: clubber http://politics.moonagewebdream.com/2008/08/29/jury-acquits-jose-luis-nazario/comment-page-1/#comment-25546 clubber Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:58:50 +0000 http://politics.moonagewebdream.com/?p=1798#comment-25546 You are wrong on so many different levels that I don't know where to start. First of all, Sgt. Nazario was prosecuted by federal authorities, not by the State of California. Thank the Bush Administration, not the California Attorney General. Second, it was not a "lawsuit," but a criminal complaint. Lawsuits are civil, not criminal. Third, the basics principles of extortion happen everyday in our criminal courts -- I know because I used to be a defense attorney. However, if a prosecutor brings unfounded charges against an individual, that individuals recourse against the prosecutor is very limited. It's due to a legal principle called sovereign immunity and it can only be pierced in very specific situations. For example, if the prosecutor had pursued charges despite knowing or having strong reason to believe the defendant was innocent. Innocent being that the defendant didn't commit the charged crimes, not he likely would be found Not Guilty at trial. Sgt Nazario may very well be innocent and, if so, he's lucky that the jury saw that. However, he and other fellow Marines made statements that incriminated Nazario and that is a pretty good basis for prosecution. You are wrong on so many different levels that I don’t know where to start. First of all, Sgt. Nazario was prosecuted by federal authorities, not by the State of California. Thank the Bush Administration, not the California Attorney General. Second, it was not a “lawsuit,” but a criminal complaint. Lawsuits are civil, not criminal. Third, the basics principles of extortion happen everyday in our criminal courts — I know because I used to be a defense attorney. However, if a prosecutor brings unfounded charges against an individual, that individuals recourse against the prosecutor is very limited. It’s due to a legal principle called sovereign immunity and it can only be pierced in very specific situations. For example, if the prosecutor had pursued charges despite knowing or having strong reason to believe the defendant was innocent. Innocent being that the defendant didn’t commit the charged crimes, not he likely would be found Not Guilty at trial.

Sgt Nazario may very well be innocent and, if so, he’s lucky that the jury saw that. However, he and other fellow Marines made statements that incriminated Nazario and that is a pretty good basis for prosecution.

]]>